32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Johnny Canuck3]

It hadn't gone unnoticed, I'd read it and couldn't work out what point you were trying to make other than that you couldn't be arsed to actually read the 28 pages of the IPCC report that actually deal with this directly.

what's wrong Johnny, is 28 pages too long for you?

anyway, I'll not be too harsh on you because I think you're actually picking up on a valid concern / criticism of the IPCC models, albeit in a slightly fumbling about in the dark kind of way.

The bottom line is that as I pointed out in my previous post the impact of aerosols is extremely complex to understand, and even more complex to model accurately as the same particle can have (for example)

• a warming effect on the air around it, and at the same time a cooling effect on the ground
• a cooling effect most of the year, but a warming effect in winter when it's above snow so it's actually darker than the ground it's over.
• a cooling effect over the sea, and a warming effect over the land
• a slight warming effect when at low altitudes, or a big cooling effect at higher altitudes as moisture condenses around the particle to form high level white reflective cloud
• A warming effect at lower levels by causing low level cloud to be thicker and darker, and more persistent.

Then you've got the fact that black carbon particulates are a strong positive driver, whereas the whiter sulphur particulates are usually a strong negative driver due to their differing albedo levels (obviously the exact effect depends on the albedo level of the earths surface underneath) ... and then black carbon in the air can cause the air to heat up more and actually burn light reflective clouds off.


So from the above examples (not an exhaustive list) you should be able to see the complexity of the problem, and why they haven't yet nailed it in the models, and why it's listed by the IPCC as being at a low-medium level of scientific understanding - because they, unlike bigfish and his ilk, are actually very open and transparent about what their level of understanding of any aspect of the problem is.

None of this does anything to discredit the fact that antrhopogenic caused increases in CO2, Methane and various other greenhouse gasses are (in combination with a range of other factors described in the IPCC reports) causing the earth to warm up, and will continue to do so.

more to follow...

The issue as I understood it, presented by lbj and probably others, was that the two 'hot periods' in the 20th century - 1910-45, and 1975-present, can fit with the concept of temperatures rising in response to increasing Co2 levels. I'd said that these two bulges, were inconsistent with that model.

Lbj had said that the decrease in aerosol pollution in the latter half of the century, meant that the cooling effect resulting from sulfur etc, lessened as the century went on.

In response, I'd pointed to the articles mentioning that aerosol/sulfur emissions from China, India etc had been icreasing, and that as a result, the IPCC was uncertain as to whether or not aerosols/sulfur levels had increased or decreased since the 80s.

Given that uncertainty, the mystery of the 'bulges', remains, so far as I know.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

None of this does anything to discredit the fact that antrhopogenic caused increases in CO2, Methane and various other greenhouse gasses are (in combination with a range of other factors described in the IPCC reports) causing the earth to warm up, and will continue to do so.

more to follow...

What it does, is show the areas of major uncertainty involved, meaning that it is difficult at present to draw firm conclusions as to the cause, severity, or effects of global temperature increases.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That was definately true through the 80's and 90's, but I'm almost certain it's not actually been true of this decade as sulphur emmissions from china and india have gone through the roof, with China estimated to have been the biggest global emitter of SO2 since the early 1990's.

[sciencedaily]

However, over the same period SO2 emissions have been increasing significantly from Asia which is estimated to currently emit 17TgSyr-1 (Streets et al., 2003) and from developing countries (e.g., Boucher and Pham, 2002). The net result of these combined regional reductions and increases leads to uncertainty in whether the global SO2 has increased or decreased since the 1980s (Lefohn et al., 1999; Van Aardenne et al., 2001; Boucher and Pham, 2002)

,
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Second Draft chapter 2, page 30

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Answered in #314

]

er, what exactly did that mean?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

A
Answered in #405

That post isn't responsive to the idea in mine.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Link one: not found

Link two. Oh dear.
Link three: From some undated travel guide with no author, so hardly a credible source.
Link four: Written by International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project - not even remotely an unbiased source.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP
Link five: not found
Link six: EIGHT years old
Link seven: not found
Link eight: not found

Great work Johnny.

Link one, works fine for me. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html

Link 2. http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN "Oh dear", what?


Link 3, re the Perito Moreno glacier. It's either a fact that the glacier is growing, or not. Did you check any other sources or not; ie are you actually interested in determining if these things are true, or are you only interested in propping up your beliefs on the subject at whatever cost to accuracy or self respect?

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/environment/245875

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624950.100-glaciers-are-cool.html

If you think I'm in error concerning this glacier, prove it.

Link 4. I've provided a link to back up an assertion. If I'm wrong, prove it. If I'm wrong, there will be other articles saying so, given the current interest in the topic.

You've given your opinion that the source is biased, but you've done nothing to prove that the alleged bias has operated in this instance to provide incorrect information.

 

[Signal 11]

er, what exactly did that mean?

It meant that the level might have either risen or fallen slightly from the low point that it reached after being reduced, so its effect would not be the same as when it was high.

 

[Signal 11]

That post isn't responsive to the idea in mine.

The first comment in it is a response to your news reports post.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It meant that the level might have either risen or fallen slightly from the low point that it reached after being reduced, so its effect would not be the same as when it was high.

Maybe. But the IPCC is uncertain as to whether the level has risen or fallen, beginning in the Eighties.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The first comment in it is a response to your news reports post.

To repeat, even a news report can contain factual information sometime. If you think it is non-factual, find something else that proves your contention.

 

[Signal 11]

To repeat, even a news report can contain factual information sometime. If you think it is non-factual, find something else that proves your contention.

I didn't say it wasn't factual. I said it wasn't relevant. And that point was made clear in the article you linked to, as I pointed out the first time you posted it, and Editor pointed out the second time you posted it.

Here it is again:

To sum things up, global warming hasn't been called off.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I didn't say it wasn't factual. I said it wasn't relevant.

Of course it's relevant. If they don't know what's happened with aerosols/sulfur since the 80s, it's pretty tough to work it into a model with any accuracy.

Also, if it has in fact increased, the two bulges remain unexplained.

 

[Signal 11]

Of course it's relevant. If they don't know what's happened with aerosols/sulfur since the 80s, it's pretty tough to work it into a model with any accuracy.

You're switching horses again now. That was in answer to your news reports post. I have already responded to the sulfur issue.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're switching horses again now. That was in answer to your new reports post. I have already responded to the sulfur issue.

Your response doesn't make any sense. So, we're going around in circles. You can have the last word on this point if you want.

But only on this point.

 

[Signal 11]

And you obviously haven't read the article I first posted in response to your "bulge" issue, so here it is again:

Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

 

[WouldBe]

If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

If as JC and the IPCC say that aerosol levels are uncertain then how can a model accurately reproduce the temperatures?

If you don't know the aerosol levels then at least 2 models must have been produced coresponding to upper and lower levels of aerosols. Only one of these will fit the recorded temperatures but this doesn't mean that this model is the correct one.

 

[Crispy]

If as JC and the IPCC say that aerosol levels are uncertain then how can a model accurately reproduce the temperatures?

If you don't know the aerosol levels then at least 2 models must have been produced coresponding to upper and lower levels of aerosols. Only one of these will fit the recorded temperatures but this doesn't mean that this model is the correct one.

Right on the money.

The models that the IPCC use to make their assesment are run with ranges of variables. For factors that are less well understood, the range is wide. For well understood factors, the range is narrow. The combined effect is for the IPCC's predictions to have a range, from high to low. We don't know which is correct, but we do know that the future will fit inside this range, to the best of our knowledge.

 

[free spirit]

If as JC and the IPCC say that aerosol levels are uncertain then how can a model accurately reproduce the temperatures?

If you don't know the aerosol levels then at least 2 models must have been produced coresponding to upper and lower levels of aerosols. Only one of these will fit the recorded temperatures but this doesn't mean that this model is the correct one.

because they've defined the range of the uncertainties for aerosols (as well as the other factors), the IPCC are then able to model what would happen for the top and the bottom of all the different factors ranges to produce an overall range of temperatures for different scenarios that they are 95% confident that the temperature change will fall between.

I don't think this is exactly the same as using the 95% confidence interval for each factor and just adding them up, due to how probability works in that 1/20 * 1/20 * 1/20 = 1/8000, so the chances of it being at the bottom end of the 95% confidence interval range for all the many different factors would be way less than 2.5%... also each factor would be weighted according to it's global warming potential etc.

anyway, here's the IPCC prediction ranges for 4 different scenarios
The four SRES scenario families [8][9][10] of the Fourth Assessment Report vs. associated changes in global-mean temperature until 2100 AR4
more economic focus
more environmental focus Globalisation
(homogeneous world) A1
rapid economic growth
(groups: A1T/A1B/A1Fl)
1.4 - 6.4 °C B1
global environmental sustainability
1.1 - 2.9 °C Regionalisation
(heterogeneous world)

A2regionally oriented economic development = 2.0 - 5.4 °C

B2local environmental sustainability = 1.4 - 3.8 °C

eta - oops, that was meant to be in a table, will fix it

 

[Aldebaran]

OK.

There is no melting going on at the poles, there are no gletschers melting anywhere, the tundra is as intact as if always was, all who say otherwise is
a) blind or
b) an alien who has no clue about how it was before or
c) luring you all into believing fairy tales to scare you into responsible non-predatory non-parasitic behaviour.

Voilà. Everything is said and settled now. Case closed.

salaam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Right on the money.

The models that the IPCC use to make their assesment are run with ranges of variables. For factors that are less well understood, the range is wide. For well understood factors, the range is narrow. The combined effect is for the IPCC's predictions to have a range, from high to low. We don't know which is correct, but we do know that the future will fit inside this range, to the best of our knowledge.

Last I looked, the IPCC has 40 models.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Right on the money.

The models that the IPCC use to make their assesment are run with ranges of variables. For factors that are less well understood, the range is wide. For well understood factors, the range is narrow. The combined effect is for the IPCC's predictions to have a range, from high to low. We don't know which is correct, but we do know that the future will fit inside this range, to the best of our knowledge.

Assuming you're correct, we must ask ourselves whether it's worth the cost of change, if the increase over the next century will be at the lower end of the IPCC range.

projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.[1

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

because they've defined the range of the uncertainties for aerosols (as well as the other factors), the IPCC are then able to model what would happen for the top and the bottom of all the different factors ranges to produce an overall range of temperatures for different scenarios that they are 95% confident that the temperature change will fall between.

I don't think this is exactly the same as using the 95% confidence interval for each factor and just adding them up, due to how probability works in that 1/20 * 1/20 * 1/20 = 1/8000, so the chances of it being at the bottom end of the 95% confidence interval range for all the many different factors would be way less than 2.5%... also each factor would be weighted according to it's global warming potential etc.

anyway, here's the IPCC prediction ranges for 4 different scenarios
The four SRES scenario families [8][9][10] of the Fourth Assessment Report vs. associated changes in global-mean temperature until 2100 AR4
more economic focus
more environmental focus Globalisation
(homogeneous world) A1
rapid economic growth
(groups: A1T/A1B/A1Fl)
1.4 - 6.4 °C B1
global environmental sustainability
1.1 - 2.9 °C Regionalisation
(heterogeneous world)

A2regionally oriented economic development = 2.0 - 5.4 °C

B2local environmental sustainability = 1.4 - 3.8 °C

eta - oops, that was meant to be in a table, will fix it

What are the predictions in the other 36?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

OK.

There is no melting going on at the poles, there are no gletschers melting anywhere, the tundra is as intact as if always was, all who say otherwise is
a) blind or
b) an alien who has no clue about how it was before or
c) luring you all into believing fairy tales to scare you into responsible non-predatory non-parasitic behaviour.

Voilà. Everything is said and settled now. Case closed.

salaam.

There's melting going on at the poles, but in Antarctica at least, the increased precipitation also means that ice continues to form at a greater rate.

This is something that even an alien can understand.

 

[bigfish]

Last I looked, the IPCC has 40 models.

And what's more all of them failed to predict the cooling that the wold is experiencing now. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist at University of Alabama Hutsville and formerly of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, explains why all of the IPCC models are wrong:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And what's more all of them failed to predict the cooling that the wold is experiencing now. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist at University of Alabama Hutsville and formerly of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, explains why all of the IPCC models are wrong:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik

I've been meaning to read his book.

 

[david dissadent]

And what's more all of them failed to predict the cooling that the wold is experiencing now. Roy Spencer, Principle Research Scientist at University of Alabama Hutsville and formerly of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, explains why all of the IPCC models are wrong:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk0zTW-ik

Got an explanation yet of how a single volcanic episode could heat an entire ocean?

Until then we will continue laughing at your bullshit.

 

[Signal 11]

I've been meaning to read his book.

No doubt you'll love it seeing as he's a far-right xtian nutjob:

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism

Source: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I

Naturally, he's also linked to the usual front groups like the Heartland Institute and the Marshall Institute, which have already been covered on this thread.

 

[bigfish]

No doubt you'll love it seeing as he's a far-right xtian nutjob..

That's a bit rich, coming from a far-right eco crackpot like you, don't you think?

 

[Signal 11]

That's a bit rich, coming from a far-right eco crackpot like you, don't you think?

Provide evidence for this allegation or withdraw it.

 

[bigfish]

Got an explanation yet of how a single volcanic episode could heat an entire ocean?.

We are talking about the utter uselessness of all the IPPC's models, dave. How is it that you and your chums here place so much confidence in them?